Who

Saying "Nader is a Fucktard" is not Censorship

Lawrence Lessig has made some righteously angry
observations about Ralph Nader
who, in typically arrogant fashion, is going around saying stupid and
wrongheaded things. Some other folks, notably Aaron
Swartz are saying that Lessig is somehow “forgetting
about the First Amendment.” I respect
Aaron, even when I disagree with him, so it’s disappointing to see him making
such a weak argument. In particular, Aaron says:

_ As Nader said ( and Lessig obviously heard ), running for President is a
First Amendment right, involving speech, press, association, and petitioning
the government. And in America, we value our First Amendment rights more than
the harm that they may cause. _

Aaron, this argument is so bogus, dumb, and beneath you that I need to invent
a new word to describe it: Squalmish. There. The argument that claiming that
Nader is responsible for his actions, or asking Nader to take or not take some
action somehow violates his First Amendment rights is amazingly squalmish.
Incredibly squalmish. Squalmish to the point of absurdity, one might say.

Lessig doesn’t need me to defend him. He does it for
himselfquite superbly, and
I’m not even 1/16th of the lawyer that he is. But maybe I can frame the debate
in more prosaic terms that explain exactly why some of have such a violent
reaction to his claim of “censorship.”

Nader (or any other idiot) is free to run for President, assuming he meets the
Constitutional requirements, which of course he does. If the government were
to outlaw his Presidential bid, that would be “censorship,” of a sort. If
there was a media conspiracy to not give him any air time, that would be
another form of censorship, albeit not one that involved the First Amendment.
Criticism, however, is not censorship. Criticism is in fact the antithesis
of censorship. Nader is free to say and do what he wants, within the confines
of the law. The rest of us (Lawrence Lessig, Melissa Block, or me, or anyone)
are free to request that he not do so, or beg him to not do so, or to point
out that by doing so he is serving the forces of darkness, or is an egotist,
or is (quite simply) a fucktard.

It does not infringe on Nader’s First Amendment rights to observe that he,
fucktardedly, helped elect George Bush. It does not infringe on Nader’s First
Amendment rights for me to observe that if he does it again, he will continue
to be acting like a fucktard. It is not censorship to ask, request, tell, or
advise him not to run, or to criticize him when, as we all expect, he makes
the wrong decision and runs anyway. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of
speech. It does not, should not, and never will guarantee freedom from
criticism.

Now stop being so squalmish, Aaron, and return to your usual, better, quality
of argument.